Larger Maps Need To Be Made For Top Tier Ground. This does not mean only long range engagemnents

  • Pradesh caters to mid-short range skirmishes and cas, with the only real long range sight lines being almost in the other sides’ spawn.
  • Red Desert is essentially the same.
  • Shockingly also applicable to fields of Poland, except the hills and terrain limit engagement ranges even further.
  • Maginot Line is a medium range map at best, with only 1 variant of it even vaguely coming close to a decently ranged option. But even then, the ranges are under 800m, unless by some miracle they’ve actually made it longer instead of cutting it down.
  • Surroundings of Volokalamsk ends up in short range brawls over the points, unless by some miracle they changed it.
  • Sands of Tunisia was already highlighted, and it is actually fairly average in the context of tanks.

i don’t think any of the maps you listed have even close to the average engagements ranges as the large Tunisia (note: average).
just because there is a possibility to have long range engagements does not mean that it is a long range map. i would personally categorize long range maps as maps where you are ALMOST forced to shoot at at least 2-3km (maybe even 3-4km) ranges as default.
how people feel about those types of maps is an entirely different question.


Average engagement is dictated by the players on those maps; Of course post 1.5km is obviously long-range for modern tanks.

Dunno why anyone would attack those of us that support large and diverse map selection.

Only the fastest route was unsafe, as it should be. You were able to get out of your spawn safely from the left side of north spawn and actually advance rather near the C point. I don’t see that as spawn camping. Fastest routes shouldn’t be the safest routes. You take the fastest route you also take up a risk.

1 Like

not really, to some degree yes, that why i wrote “forced” as a prerequisite.

nope, that was me. some words in there were less than nice and thus against community guidelines, i flagged Fluffy’s pot as well for the same reason.

no no, your initial post is very much interpreted as “here are many large maps, we don’t need more since we have many”. i know that’s not what you ment, but that is what people are going to read it as.
not only that but as i stated, those are not really long range maps since almost all players will choose to sneak closer if they can, thus those maps will become closer in engagement ranges.
i repeat: to make a map long range, you almost have to force players to make those engagements at those longer ranges.


If people add meaning where there is none that’s their line of thinking, not mine.
If that was my line of thinking that’d be in my post.

I’m indifferent about adding maps, especially since I want some existing maps removed/replaced; Most of which are smaller maps.

honestly, if you read his posts as if he is autistic (NOT used in a derogatory sense here, i have no idea if he actually is autistic or not) its way easier to see what he actually means instead of what he writes which more often than not is not what he wants to convey.

1 Like

Yes, I am a high functioning autist.
I write things literally and directly, and do my best to follow the exact rules of the English language as taught by college professors and teachers prior.

I’ve never changed my statements intended meaning; and I never attacked anyone wishing for game improvements.

Yall can go create your own post for discussing your autism disorders.


not really, its what humans do. Everyone has subtext to their messages, how people interpret that subtext is very much based on context clues and since you often write differently to what you mean (both as mistakes and lack of understanding of specific contextual lingo and slang) people are going to read your texts as if they are malicious to their idea.
it would do you a lot of good to be overly clear on what you actually mean, take some extra time and think through you message before you send. you write A LOT of messages very fast here on the forum, i doubt you look at them 2-3 times to make sure they are correct before you hit send.

i sort of guessed as much, my wife is as well.

that’s good, but you still lack the subtext as well as the dual meaning of some sentences you write.
many things can be interpreted in two or more ways no matter how grammatically correct they are, try to add to your texts to show without a shadow of a doubt what you mean. see if it lessens the general hate against you on the forum.

thing is, if he wrote one thing (A) and is called out on that but what he actually ment was different (B). he is going to think that the person is questioning (B) and not the (A) he actually wrote. that is where 95% of his issues lie, he cant se the perspective the other person has and thinks he is being attacked for the meaning (B) and not the message (A). This VERY much makes it look like he is defending (A) when in fact he is not. this generally devolves into name-calling from both sides (to the point where his automatic pavlovian response now also is name-calling since it happens so much).

The thing is that it very often looks like you do. since you defend your opinion and sentiment and not what you accidentally wrote instead. so people see you write sentence (A) (when you mean (B) ) and call you out on (A), when your response then is “i’ve always had the opinion (B)!” people are 98% likely to think you changed your mind when in reality you just can’t communicate your thoughts well enough in a way where people understand what you mean. not that you write poorly, its just that you write for the wrong audience.

this is dangerous… stop this. there is absolutely no indication that he is lying. this is entirely your interpretation.

that might be true, but if that happens in the future, DONT ENGAGE!
at this point you are just as much to blame.

Is my prediction accurate? He did indeed come

Talking like that has always been hard, which is why I don’t talk well around younger minds.
I’ve always had a dry manner of speaking and it’s hard to do anything else, especially when I’m fixing other behaviors that I deemed more destructive to myself.

Glad you and I agree on this.
Granted, I’ve always supported large maps.
I really don’t know why Fluffy attacked anyone supporting large maps.

that is trying to fix a symptom and not the underlying cause. their behaviours are a direct result of your poor choice in words and ways to convey yourself.

  1. Slow down your typing
  2. re-read their message to see if they could have ment something else than you are responding to.
  3. re-read your message before you send to see if it can be read as if you mean the wrong thing.
  4. when people get mad at YOU they aren’t getting mad at “nato” or “defenders of the issue” (or any other kind of collective group) they are getting mad at YOUR lack of communication skills.
  5. OF they do write mean things, IGNORE IT. answer them with ONLY the subject matter at hand and try to explain yourself. if you respond kindly others are more inclined to do so towards you as well (you can never get to 0% it is the internet after all).

because it seemed like you didn’t… as i said before, they way you typed your original post in this thread it made it seem like you wanted to convey “here are a lot of large maps, so we don’t need more”, because you didn’t explicitly state otherwise until later when it was to late.

No this will ruin the best fun in the chat :(

1 Like

Weird of your post to call people idiots for supporting larger maps…
Just saying.
Your post has no other on-topic statements outside your post having an implication that every large map supporter are in your words… “idiotic Kremlin agent trolls”.

would you mind doing a bit of spring cleaning here?
Thanks :)


The problem is that a large section of their current audience is made up of people who can handle not being entertained for a few minutes (read: old(er) farts, like myself), and if they want to keep that section of the playerbase they need to listen. Because us older farts also tend to be the ones to spend money since we tend to have such a thing as disposable income.

And I love big Tunisia. Yes, you can do that spawn-to-spawn thing at A, which is what happened the first few rounds that map was in rotation; it didn’t take long for people to twig on to the fact you can in fact make it out of spawn in one piece, you can in fact get to A, B and C without being sniped if you’re somewhat careful (or take care of any … “issues” first). You can brawl at C. Even at A. Sometimes at B.

You can still be long range by finding a good position, and most good positions do leave you open to being … removed… from said position. With an ATGM carrier, you can actually have fun again. With Challengers, you can actually use their strengths. It’s a brilliant map. CAS is also not such a pain because they have to actually choose where to go do their thing, and that gives people not on that side a chance to counter.

But, if it is an experiment by Gaijin, I’m pretty sure the outcome of said experiment is that they will tell us that the numbers have shown that big maps are kaka, and that asking people to focus their attention on something for more than a few minutes just isn’t right.


You can camp opposing spawn if people are dumb and keep driving out between the rocks. All you have to do on the north end is make a beeline straight east (from A side spawn), and you can skedaddle yourself right out of spawn in nearly full cover. In the matches I’ve had on big Tunisia where I’ve been on the North end, I never had trouble being spawn camped on the A side.

I’ve always loved sands of sinai due to the various cover with 1-1.5km sniping elements.

Sadly they removed that, so now it’s just a large open desert.